2009 (12) TMI 124 - AT - Service Tax

Garden maintenance services deemed 'input services' under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004

ISMT Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Aurangabad

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling that garden maintenance services qualify as 'input services' under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The decision ... Cenvat Credit- Input service- The assessee had availed Cenvat Credit of service tax paid on garden maintenance service. Same was denied on the ground that said service was not used in or in relation to the manufacture, directly and indirectly final products and clearance of final products from the place of removal. In the light of the decision of Maruti Suzuki Ltd. v. CCE 2009 -TMI - 34348 - SUPREME COURT, in which held that input and capital goods used in captive means are covered by the definition expending the scope of definition, held that – a good garden creates a better atmosphere and environment ehich increase the working efficiency and customer would feel good. Thus the assessee was entitled to Cenvat Credit availed on the manufacture of final product, thus the appeal was to be allowed. Issues Involved:1. Denial of CENVAT credit on garden maintenance service.2. Whether garden maintenance service qualifies as an 'input service' under rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Denial of CENVAT Credit on Garden Maintenance Service:The appellant filed an appeal against the denial of CENVAT credit on garden maintenance service. The primary issue was whether such a service qualifies as an 'input service' under rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.2. Whether Garden Maintenance Service Qualifies as an 'Input Service':The appellant's advocate cited the case of Millipore India Ltd. v. CCE, where the Tribunal held that services related to modernization, renovation, and landscaping of factory premises are considered 'input services' under rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Conversely, the respondent's representative relied on the Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. v. CCE decision, which stated that garden maintenance service has no nexus to the manufacture or clearance of excisable goods.Definition of Input Service:The definition under rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, includes services used directly or indirectly in relation to the manufacture of final products and their clearance from the place of removal. It also encompasses services related to setting up, modernization, renovation, or repairs of a factory, advertisement, sales promotion, market research, and other business activities.Analysis of Relevant Case Law:The learned DR referenced the Coca-Cola India (P.) Ltd. v. CCE decision, which divided the definition of input service into five categories, emphasizing that services used in relation to business activities are eligible for CENVAT credit. The High Court in this case clarified that input services must be allowed as long as they form part of the assessable value of the final products.Comparative Analysis of Input and Input Service:The Maruti Suzuki Ltd. v. CCE case was cited to argue that inputs must be used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products to be eligible for credit. However, the definitions of 'input' and 'input service' are not identical. The definition of 'input' is restrictive, focusing on goods used in manufacturing, while 'input service' is broader, covering various business-related activities.Tribunal's Findings:The Tribunal found that the definition of input service under rule 2(l) is broader and includes services used in relation to business activities. The Coca-Cola India (P.) Ltd. decision was not considered in the Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. case. The Tribunal emphasized that garden maintenance contributes to a better working environment, enhancing efficiency and creating a positive impression on consumers.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the appellant is entitled to CENVAT credit for garden maintenance services, as these services are used in relation to business activities. The appeal was allowed, affirming the appellant's right to avail of the CENVAT credit on garden maintenance services.